Michael J. Badalamenti v. Dunham's, Inc., Kinney Shoe Corporation, and Hyde Athletic Industries, Inc., Defendants/cross-Appellants

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “[t]he plain terms of the rules of civil procedure” give parties responding to document requests four options: (1) agree to produce the documents, (2) object to the request, (3) move for a protective order, or (4) ignore the request
• explaining that “[t]he plain terms of the rules of civil procedure” give parties responding to document requests four options: (1) agree to produce the documents, (2) object to the request, (3) move for a protective order, or (4) ignore the request
• applying Sixth Circuit case law at the time and relying on the Bell Court’s analysis of the majority rule
• reversing a grant of sanctions when a “response was not so evasive and misleading as to constitute a failure to respond”
• finding Rule 37(d) sanctions inapplicable as a threshold matter under the majority rule where the responding party raised confidentiality concerns and indicated it would not produce its responsive materials without first obtaining a protective order
• “[I]f the regional circuit court has not spoken, we must predict how that court would decide the issue . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).